Article : Is Animal Kindom a Failure?

[WillAndFinn'sMom]

I really like AK (as does the rest of my family). I think its main problem is its layout. It's kind of confusing and easy to miss some areas. I kind of look at it as a big, fun, interactive WS.

 

[Captain Crook]

Mr. Voice, you may be right concerning Disney's hopes and projections for Animal Kingdom but my friend that is all water under the bridge now. Disney is fully aware of their failures and new management will address these issues going forward provided they remain an independent company. Eisner will go, even if it's not untill his contract expiration in 2006. The parks are in capable hands of Rasulo, Weiss and Ouimet, all of whom seem to "get it" , IMO...So Eisner is the sole remaining cog to the mistakes of the past and he even seems to realize the need for quality upgrades at this point. We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.

The fact that most people use hoppers at WDW has no bearing on whether AK is successful or not as all parks are entered the same way. WDW is looking at their resort as a whole, perhaps realizing that new parks can't necessarily always lead to longer guest vacations. The law of diminishing returns has to kick in eventually and I think WDW and perhaps all of Orlando bear witness to this.

No one here is saying the "guests don't get" Aimal Kingdom but we are saying it is the 5th most attended theme park in the US ahead of the highly touted IOA or Knotts or any Sea World. How they got to be #5, via hoppers or free add on days or single day ticket purchases is irrelevent. WDW like any business must massage its policies and procedures to maximize the current profit potential. Mr. Show is right in stating travel and economy concerns, not as an excuse for lowered expectations but rather for changes in policies to adapt to different circumstances...Nothing wrong with that.

As for AK specifically, we know you've long been an detractor of what was built but you fail to give acceptance to those of us who generally like what was built. If you find the Safari lame and preachy that is OK but to most guests it certainly is not. Poaching very well may not be the biggest problem facing the real Africa but the theme is a good one for young American children who are isolated from the "real" Africa to get their feet wet with a simplistic, yet compelling scenerio.

 

[Donald-n-Daisy]

Failure?? I think not.

Our Disney family loves AK because of its unique theming and less hurried atmosphere. Dinosaur is one of the best rides on Disney property, and the safari is also one of our favorites.

Lets all remember that it's the new kid on the block and is still growing. MGM Studios opened in 1989 and was IMHO rather lackluster for many years. TOT was added in 1994 and Rock -n -Roller Coaster not until 1999.

Do I think the Dinoland area carnival needs to be changed to something more worthy of the Disney name. I have a feeling it was a quick fix addition and will eventually, to stay on theme, go the way of the dinosaur.

Give it a chance people. It's still a work in progress.

Personally I am amazed by the number of negative posts on this, and many other topics (parks, food, resorts, etc.)

IMO..if you leave WDW and your first instinct is to complain, you really need to lighten up. If you can't enjoy WDW, I can't imagine you find much of anything enjoyable.

HAKUNA MATATA!

 

[grinningghost]

Just to let you know D&D, I think the reason we find the negatives at WDW is because we all really LOVE it there. Much more than the average visitor. Many of us are FANATICS, and that makes us more observant. Many of us have been doing Disney for years and we notice when things aren't up to their old grand standards.

Certainly not that we don't have fun there. I know I do at least. I don't want to leave once I'm there, but the Rumors Board can be a tough crowd - so you just have to roll with the punches around here.

 

[Planogirl]

Who's to say whether the no. 6 and 7 parks would do better or worse if WDW wasn't there? I wouldn't even attempt to project that but I do keep in mind that Florida was a major tourist destination before WDW was built. Would Universal be a bigger deal if WDW wasn't there? Or less of an attraction? Who knows but it's probably likely that none of the Universal parks would have been built and Cypress Gardens and Busch Gardens would be mopping up.

As for AK benefiting from hoppers, I know that's the reason why we go at the present time. I would personally not pay over $50 to visit this park whereas I would gladly pay much more to visit MK and Epcot. I can justify visiting AK when we already have passes. I do however believe that AK has the potential to become a much greater park, maybe even becoming number 2 at some point.

But of course this is just my own subjective opinion.

 

[Captain Crook]

PG, I wouldn't pay over $50.00 to go to Animal Kingdom either...Nor would I to go to The Studios, Epcot or the Magic Kingdom...This is the beauty of "hoppers" or Annual passes. This is why the single day price just isn't too relevent. But guests through the turnstiles is how numbers are taken and the success of those figures are gleaned in the annual report. It just doesn't matter that only 5% (made up figure) were day guests anymore than it does at USF or SW...

As for how would USF have fared without Disney well, I think you got part of it right in that (the old) Cypress Gardens would probably be the only game in town. Orlando was a sleepy ag town before Disney and I don't think too many people were setting their sites on Central Florida as a potential vacation destination until Walt put his ideas into play.

Certainly we have no idea what would have taken place would WDW not have come to Orlando but I'm relatively certain that Central Florida would not have evolved the way it did.

 

[Bob O]

AV is right!!!!
The park has been a failure from day one and hasnt done increased overall attendance to wdw or increased the total amount of time people spend at the resort. All it has done is siphon part of a day from one of the other parks and hasnt incrased the total amont of time people spend at the resort.
Without park hoppers AK would have lower attendance than alot of seasonal parks. While i would pay $50 for the other disney parks as well as Universal parks i would never pay that much to go to AK which is still a half day park at best with only KS coming across as a top notch attraction and the collection of animals is better at numerous zoo's around the country for alot less molney!!!
As for a supposed "work in progress", if that is the case then why doesnt disney charge less till the park has progressed enough to have a full days worth of activities, where the park can be open from 900am till midnight in summer with enough activities to keep one busy???.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
IMO...So Eisner is the sole remaining cog to the mistakes of the past and he even seems to realize the need for quality upgrades at this point. We can sit and complain about the past or we can discuss hope for the future.

Is it really a matter of upgrades?

It's sort of like fixing the symptoms, but the disease is still there.

Although Animal Kingdom has it's problems, it's true solution isn't going to come until somebody realizes that it's the philosophy that has to be fixed.

Animal Kingdom should NOT have been opened when it was. They had all these great plans to add to the park. Why didn't they just wait until they could afford to build the WHOLE thing?

I'll tell you why! They were looking to increase the price of park hoppers. They wanted to advertise their new park, and get lots more people to central florida, and boost their bottom line. BUT - as has happened with many other Disney projects, all it did was serve to dillute the brand by opening with something less than they were capable of.

This can be argued until we're blue in the face - but the numbers are showing that they need to do something with this park. I, along with everyone else, can be accused of not "getting" the Animal Kingdom, but those of you that do claim to "get" it, can stay in there by yourselves until it closes, because the masses will have left. And Disney will STILL have a park with half-day stigma.

 

[dcentity2000]

In law I was taught that equity (what a company seeks to gain) may not only be measured in terms of money but also in terms of 'goodness' or 'promotion of future equity'.

Take a look at the opening of Animal Kingdom - clicky (from lionking.net) - this promotion, coupled with the general awareness of the park gained by anyone who touches the topic of Disney parks (and many who don't) could be considered to give Disney a return in equity as it earns them 'goodness' and 'promotion of future equity'.

You see, there is a chance that the fact that there stand four parks instead of three, or that there stands a park themed on animals, or even the fact that there stands a brand new park dedicated to the preservation of animals (as it could be seen) could play to the advantage of Disney - it could attract more people to the image that Disney wants to impress upon itself, it could encourage more people to visit WDW even if not in order to see Animal Kingdom.

What I'm saying here is that success is not measured upon cash alone. Not to say that success in this field can be measured in emotion alone either - depending on the situation, it's somewhere between the two. Personally, I feel that the financial success of the Animal Kingdom has been a tad under par, whilst the intangible successes have been acceptable.

Feel free to flame



Rich::

 

[DancingBear]

A couple of points:

--As has been mentioned above, Disney/MGM had the same rap when it opened. AK has already been significantly expanded, with Asia and the oft-maligned amusement-park rides, and has Everest coming.

--If AK is siphoning off enough parkhopper holders to be the #5 theme park in the country in attendance, then, if nothing else, it has to have improved the experience in each of the other three parks by spreading the crowds.

 

[Captain Crook]

Again Snacky No ONE is saying you don't "get it" !!! I appreciate that you don't like it. Fine. That is truly OK. But lots of people DO like it as indicated by its national ranking.

I've been there three times this year and AK was the most crowded Park once, with MK getting the honor once and Epcot the third time! What can be learned from this? Nothing.

Is it really a matter of upgrades?

You bet ! That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park. Dcenity2000 is correct in his view that sometimes more is more and sometimes more is less...

Show is right when he speaks of what E:E will do for AK's numbers. Like Epcot where, despite what naysayers on this board might think, M:S is a huge success. Over Spring Break the line was nearing the Mousegear gift shop, Ive been told! AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving. The only ones short on evolution are the originals and thats because they are the model and epitome of a theme park.

Bob, if you really, truly think USF is better than WDW then I suggest you buy passes for USF and stay at their hotels and forget that Disney exists because the Disney you folks are waiting for ain't coming back, even when Eisner leaves.

Oh and Snacky, one more thing, that half day stigma is recognized by a total of about 150 geeks on the internet. Is that a real life problem for Disney, do you think?

 

[dcentity2000]

^^ Exactly what he said ^^



Rich::

 

[KNWVIKING]

When AK opened it's attendance was somewhere near 9 mil. If you added up the totals of MK,Epcot & MGM from the previous year, was that total 9 mil less the year AK opened ? My point is that if opening AK only robbed its numbers from the existing parks - ala IOA taking guests away USF when they took the halloween holiday - then I'd agree AK was a financial failure.

 

[PKS44]

Failure or success have nothing to do with who likes it and who does not...Disney has failed to achieve what they set out with this park

the numbers have been hashed here before and AK has only cannibalized its attendence from the other parks...there has been no increase in the number of visitors--if the goal was to increase total guests -which it was--it has FAILED at that goal.

It has failed to keep people on property longer...it has failed to keep people from visiting Sea World and Busch Gardens as was one of its goals...

Attendance at AK dropped every year of its first 6 years of existence...every year fewer and fewer people attended the park than the year before---that smells like failure to me...now attendence is flat and that has been accomplished partly by making AK an EMH park now...the turnstile count is made from the First park visited by a parkhopper--those who go to AK on Monday and Friday for EMH are counted as AK guests even if they leave at 9 to go to another park for the rest of the day...Previously AK did not participate in the EMH surprise mornings whatever so the fact that it is the first and ONLY park open two days a week for that hour are bound to spike up attendence totals for the park--and still attendence has not gone up--despite additions to the park (Asia-Hester,etc..Parade--special food deal discounts)--if the goal was to have fewer guests visit each year than the park is a roaring success...if like most parks it is supposed to grow attendence as it adds things.. that is failure...

And finally--the idea that parks don't open complete is really misguided...Walt never felt any park was complete as long as there was imagination...but he also did not try to use his name and reputation to prop up projects that were not ready for the public...he got it right first---Tokyo parks were not opened complete--DisneySeas is adding Tower of Terror and trying to add other things to more evenly balance the incredible number of guests they enjoy from opening a park that WAS ready for the show....AK, DCA, MGM Paris Studios--these Eisner specials were specifically designed to be less to make more money early on--except they failed to that because the public is not so easy to hoodwink...they failed to acheive what Eisner thought they would...and still they seem bent on doing it again in Hong Kong...well they are consistently stupid anyway...

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
Again Snacky No ONE is saying you don't "get it" !!! I appreciate that you don't like it. Fine. That is truly OK. But lots of people DO like it as indicated by its national ranking.

WHOAH there trigger. WAY too many generalizations for my taste.

First of all, I never said I didn't like it. I said that I'd leave halfway through the day. I like rides, and Animal Kingdom just doesn't stack up in that department - but that doesn't mean I don't like it. I've said many times that aesthetically, it's my favorite park.

Secondly - since when can you decipher who LIKES a park based on attendance figures? All attendance figures measure is how many people have gone into the park. It doesn't take into account any opinion they may have.

I've been there three times this year and AK was the most crowded Park once, with MK getting the honor once and Epcot the third time! What can be learned from this? Nothing.

You can't personally call the attendance shots because the layout of the parks is WAY different. Fewer sit down restaurants + fewer attractions = lots of bodies on walkways. There could have easily been lots more people in the Magic Kingdom, it just didn't seem that way because they were eating or were on rides. Not to mention that maybe on the particular day you were there, it was more crowded, but the attendance figures will show you that overall, there's fewer people in the Animal Kingdom.

You bet ! That's what Disney is all about and always has been about. Walt didn't finish DL prior to opening, Roy didn't finisn MK and no park since has opened "finished" except for maybe that silly Japenese Park. Dcenity2000 is correct in his view that sometimes more is more and sometimes more is less...

I'm not saying that the park should have been open completed - but DEFINITELY more needed to be built.

And everyone seems to like to bring up MGM - but I won't get into that. By Disney's OWN admission, it had 2 - count 'em - 2 rides. That to me stinks of a half-day park. And I still don't think it's up to snuff, but this debate is about Animal Kingdom.

Show is right when he speaks of what E:E will do for AK's numbers. Like Epcot where, despite what naysayers on this board might think, M:S is a huge success. Over Spring Break the line was nearing the Mousegear gift shop, Ive been told! AK will evolve as will DCA and The Studios...Heck even Epcot is still evolving. The only ones short on evolution are the originals and thats because they are the model and epitome of a theme park.

My point with my first posting in this thread, that seems to have been missed is that you can keep adding things but until the philosophy behind the additions is fixed, it won't help. Otherwise you end up with Dino-crap-o-rama.

Oh and Snacky, one more thing, that half day stigma is recognized by a total of about 150 geeks on the internet. Is that a real life problem for Disney, do you think?

How do you know? Have you personally sat and monitored when the people leave? Attendance figures ONLY show how many people entered in a day. It didn't say when each of those people left. Prime example - my friend who visited for the first time, is not a Disney geek, was DONE with Animal Kingdom by about 2:00 after having entered at noon. Get back to me with that figure once you've been able to prove it.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"the numbers have been hashed here before and AK has only cannibalized its attendence from the other parks...there has been no increase in the number of visitors--if the goal was to increase total guests -which it was--it has FAILED at that goal."***

So you have the statistical data that I was asking for that shows the total park attendance was virtually the same. Three parks in 98 had the same attendance as four parks in 99. Could you post those numbers please.

 

[Captain Crook]

How do you know? Have you personally sat and monitored when the people leave?

You mean you never noticed me???

 

[KNWVIKING]

In 98, MK had 15.6 mil, down 8%, EPCOT had 10.5 mil, down 10%, MGM had 9.5 mil,down 10 %. That would account for about 3 mil less in those parks. In the partial year AK was open, they had 6 mil guests. Plus 3 mil for WDW.

In 99, MK had 15.1 mil,down 2.8%, EPCOT had 10.1, down 4.6%, MGM had 8.7 mil, down 8.1%.

Total loss,98 vs 99 = 1.7 mil
AK attendance 99 = 8.6 mil

AK added 6.9 mil guests to WDW

 

[Planogirl]

Viking, I don't understand your logic. The AK guests likely visited the other parks too so you can't really count them separately.

Troubling to me is that far more people visit MK than AK. Assuming that most people have hoppers or are pass holders, that might indicate that many people are bypassing AK even though it doesn't cost anything extra.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
Prime example - my friend who visited for the first time, is not a Disney geek, was DONE with Animal Kingdom by about 2:00 after having entered at noon.

What did he do?